| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Kirby, 1911, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving interstate commerce and transportation law. The plaintiff, Kirby, had contracted with a New Jersey company for delivery of machinery to Missouri via multiple carriers including Chicago & Alton Railroad Company (C&A). C&A refused to deliver without additional charges due to an alleged error in classification and rate by previous carrier. When Kirby sued for breach of contract and won at both district court level and appellate level, C&A appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that they were not bound by rates set in initial contract as it was made outside their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld lower courts' decisions favoring Kirby stating that through bills of lading are contracts which bind all participating carriers regardless where they were issued or what part they play in transport chain. This decision established principle known as "filed rate doctrine" - once a freight rate is filed with Interstate Commerce Commission (now Surface Transportation Board), it becomes binding on both shipper and carrier until changed according to prescribed procedures.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Kirby argued that the majority's decision to hold a railroad company liable for damages incurred during interstate transportation, even when caused by another carrier, was unjust and inconsistent with previous rulings. The dissent emphasized that liability should be determined based on contract terms between parties involved and not imposed arbitrarily by law. It stressed that if a party did not agree to assume responsibility for potential damage or loss beyond its control or outside its jurisdiction, it should not be held accountable for such occurrences. Furthermore, the dissent pointed out inconsistencies in applying this principle across different cases involving similar circumstances but varying outcomes due to differing interpretations of contracts and laws governing carriers' responsibilities.